January 30



TEXAS----impending execution

30 years after killing a Houston police officer, Robert Jennings is set for execution----Jennings is expected to be put to death on Wednesday for the 1988 murder of Elston Howard. His sentence has been complicated by constantly evolving death penalty law — changes his lawyers are citing in a last-ditch attempt to stay his execution.



Robert Jennings has been on Texas’ death row for nearly 30 years. On Wednesday, the 61-year-old is set to die in the nation’s 1st execution of 2019.

Jennings was sentenced to death in the 1988 murder of Houston police officer Elston Howard. According to court records, Jennings walked into an adult book store to rob it, and Howard was there arresting the store clerk for a municipal violation. The clerk testified that Howard had no time to even reach for his gun before Jennings shot him multiple times, killing him.

The lengthy stretch of time between Jennings' 1989 sentencing and his scheduled execution shines a light on the complications that can arise during the appeals process in the face of constantly evolving death penalty law. In their current attempt to halt Jennings' execution, his lawyers are zeroing in on changes in how death penalty juries weigh "mitigating evidence"— factors that can lessen the severity of the punishment that are largely based on the defendant's background, like an abusive childhood or intellectual disability.

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court points out that, at the time of Jennings' trial, Texas juries were not told they could opt for a sentence of life in prison rather than death if they believed the defendant’s background or character warranted mercy — a key aspect of death penalty trials now.

Rather, the so-called "special issue" questions Texas juries were required to answer after finding someone guilty of capital murder asked them to determine whether the murder was deliberate or provoked — and whether the defendant was a potential future danger.

At the punishment portion of Jennings 1989 murder trial, where the jury was supposed to answer those questions, the prosecution brought up Jennings’ long rap sheet — he had been to prison multiple times for aggravated robbery, and had been released on parole only 2 months before Howard’s murder, according to court records. In his confession to police after his arrest, he also confessed to several other robberies in the 2-month span.

Meanwhile, Jennings’ lawyers only brought forth a Harris County jail chaplain, who said Jennings wasn’t “incorrigible,” in reference to potential danger posed. The jury also heard Jennings’ recorded confession, where he admitted he had been drinking and using drugs and expressed remorse for the shooting.

But days before the trial, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in an unrelated case that a death penalty jury must be specifically directed to determine whether mitigating evidence warrants sparing the defendant from execution. In an attempt to address the ruling at the last minute, Jennings’ jurors were told after closing arguments to consider any mitigating evidence already introduced and, if they found it appropriate, to answer against the death penalty in one of the already-existing questions.

The jury was unconvinced, and Jennings was sentenced to death. It wasn’t until more than a decade later that the Supreme Court again took up the issue and determined that telling a jury to weigh mitigating evidence by overwriting an existing special issue is not constitutional.

Jennings’ lawyers have argued that the jury’s inability to properly weigh his drug use and how remorseful he was for Howard’s death warrants him a new trial with the new special issue questions, which now include a question on mitigating evidence. They’ve also said if the trial counsel had known to raise other mitigating evidence, including mental deficits and a troubling childhood, the jury would have reached a different conclusion.

“It gets extremely complicated because the law evolves and then the question is: Do new decisions get applied retroactively?” Randy Schaffer, one of Jennings’ lawyers, told The Texas Tribune.

But not every death sentence handed down before juries were instructed to consider mitigating factors was tossed after the Supreme Court ruling.

Rather, the nation's highest court said it depended on the nature of the evidence presented at trial. So far, the courts have ultimately said Jennings’ remorse doesn’t make the cut — though he did get one execution date taken off the calendar as a Texas court took up the issue in 2016.

Jennings’ lawyers have argued against the court decisions by pointing to dozens of other capital murder cases that got new sentencing trials after the Supreme Court rulings. Specifically, they point to the case of Arthur Williams, another man who was sentenced to death for the murder of a Houston police officer under the old punishment standards and eventually re-sentenced to life in prison based largely on showing remorse for the killing.

The Brief

"Both Williams and Jennings exhibited remorse after killing a police officer in Houston. They were convicted and sentenced to death in the same court," Schaffer wrote in a pending appeal before the Supreme Court. "However, they have been treated differently thereafter."

The state said in its response that the Supreme Court “has never held that remorse alone is sufficient to grant” a new punishment trial.

“In this case, Jennings attorneys presented their limited evidence of remorse to the jury. And the jury rejected it,” wrote Texas Assistant Attorney General Ellen Stewart-Klein.

Complicating matters further is another appeal that just landed in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, where Jennings’ other lawyers are faulting Schaffer, Jennings' longtime appellate lawyer, and his trial lawyers for “bad lawyering.” They argue that the trial lawyers were at fault for not calling for changes to the trial after the Supreme Court ruling on mitigation, instead blindly accepting improper jury instructions from the prosecution. And they said Schaffer, as the appellate lawyer, didn't properly raise the trial counsels' mistakes in the appeals process to get Jennings a new punishment trial.

Unless the court steps in, Jennings is scheduled to be put to death in the Huntsville execution chamber after 6 p.m. on Wednesday. It would be the 1st execution of the year in the nation. Earlier this month, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stopped the execution of Blaine Milam based on changes to forensic science and death penalty law.

The executions of those convicted of killing law enforcement often draw a small crowd of officer supporters on motorcycles who rev their engines at the time of execution. Jennings' scheduled death comes only 2 days after 4 Houston police officers were shot during a narcotics bust.

(source: The Texas Tribune)

*******************

Execution set for Houston cop killer



Texas is scheduled to execute inmate Robert Jennings Wednesday at the Huntsville “Walls” Unit after nearly 30 years on death row.

If things move forward as expected, Jennings, 61, would be the first man put to death in 2019, although attorneys are still fighting to delay his execution once again.

Jennings was sentenced to death after he was convicted of murdering a Houston police officer in 1988.

Background

Jennings was convicted of capital murder for killing Houston Police Officer Elston Howard on July 19, 1988 while attempting to rob an adult bookstore. The murder occurred 2 months after he was released from prison on an aggravated robbery conviction.

According to court records, Jennings then entered Empire Book Store, planning to rob it after previously robbing a nearby movie theater. Upon entering the bookstore, Jennings saw that the clerk, Larry Overholt, was being arrested by a Houston police officer, later identified as Elston Howard.

Overholt told police that Jennings walked up to the officer and shot him twice. After the officer collapsed to the floor, Jennings shot Howard twice more.

Jennings proceeded to rob the store and escaped in a vehicle with getaway driver David Lee Harvell, telling him he had shot a “security guard.”

"He came back with that story. I didn't believe him," Harvell said to the Houston Chronicle in 2016. "But when I took the gun, I saw it had 4 spent shells. So, I believed it. … I was pretty upset. I took him down the street and tried to get him out of the car. He didn't know whether he had shot a cop or not. He's never been all that sharp."

In an effort to force Jennings from his car, he shot the convicted murderer in the hand. Harvell confessed to driving the getaway car for several earlier robberies with him.

Jennings was arrested later that day at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, while Harvell was arrested at his mother’s house in Euless. Harvell was also convicted in connection to the robberies and sentenced to 55 years in prison.

Ongoing legal challenges

It's the 2nd time in 3 years that Jennings, a man with claims of mental impairment, has faced a date with death.

Jennings narrowly escaped the needle in 2016, when the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals stayed his execution to further review claims that officials destroyed a police interview shortly after his arrest. According to appeal court records, the tapes allegedly showed Jennings expressing remorse for shooting Howard.

In September 2018, his longtime appellate attorney Randy Schaffer filed a motion to appoint a "conflict-free" counsel for his client in federal court. His latest appeal, which was denied by the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals on Thursday, argued that Jennings’ new legal team has had less than 90 days to review the case and take action before his execution.

Should Jennings be the 1st inmate to die in the new year, he'll be the 559th person killed by the state since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

(source: The Huntsville Item)

******************

Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----40

Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----558

Abbott#--------scheduled execution date-----name------------Tx. #

41---------Jan. 30----------------Robert Jennings---------559

42---------Feb. 28----------------Billy Wayne Coble-------560

43---------Mar. 28----------------Patrick Murphy----------561

44---------Apr. 11----------------Mark Robertson----------562

45---------Apr. 24----------------John King---------------563

46---------May 2------------------Dexter Johnson----------564

(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)








FLORIDA:

Prosecutor in Lake City played part in Ted Bundy's execution----“You would think 30 years after his execution, over 40 years after his last homicide that the attraction would start wearing off… but apparently it does not."



The infamous serial killer Ted Bundy is back in the spotlight, 40 years after he raped and murdered 12 year old Kimberly Leach in Lake City. There were 2 film productions recently released about him.

Bundy was executed 30 years ago, on January 24, and we’re approaching the anniversary of the disappearance of his final victim.

Kimberly Leach was snatched from Lake City Junior High School Feb. 9, 1978. Lake City has not been the same since.

“You would think 30 years after his execution, over 40 years after his last homicide that the attraction would start wearing off… but apparently it does not,” said former State Attorney Jerry Blair, who was a prosecutor in the case.

Zac Efron is starring in a movie for Sundance Film Festival called “Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile.” It chronicles the life of Ted Bundy.

“I don’t plan to see the movie, I really have no interest in seeing it,” said Blair.

Recently, Netflix also released a documentary series called, “The Ted Bundy Tapes,” where journalists release the tapes recorded of Bundy speaking of his murders while he was on death row.

It is evident the interest in Bundy has not died with him.

“Bundy defied our stereotypes and what we thought a murderer would look like," Blair said. "He was educated, handsome, articulate, he had a certain amount of charm."

Blair now hangs memorabilia on the wall of his office, showcasing his victory, after his case against Bundy got him the death penalty. “I had to take satisfaction that the system worked, that Bundy had paid the ultimate price,” he said.

He remembers Bundy’s effect on America. For example, the “groupies” of women who came to the trial to see him in Orlando. Blair said it’s unfortunate his name reopens old wounds.

“There were dozens of families whose lives were just shattered including Kimberly Leach’s family,” Blair said.

Though the school where she disappeared from still stands, Kimberly Leach’s parents are no longer with us. Her mother never lived to see Bundy executed, but Blair remembers the agony she felt during the trial. “Her life was shattered by her daughter’s death,” he said.

(source: firstcoastnews.com)








ALABAMA----impending execution

Alabama death row inmate claims Muslim spiritual adviser barred from execution



An Alabama death row inmate set to die by lethal injection next week claims his execution should be stayed because the prison won’t let him have a Muslim spiritual adviser present in the execution chamber.

Domineque Ray, 42, is set to be executed at Holman Prison on Feb. 7 at 6 p.m. by lethal injection for the 1995 killing, rape, and robbery of 15-year-old Tiffany Harville. On Monday, Ray’s lawyers filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming Ray’s right to freedom of religion was being violated. They also asked for a stay of execution.

The lawsuit claims Ray, a Muslim, asked Holman’s Warden Cynthia Stewart last week that he be permitted to have a Muslim spiritual adviser—or imam—in the execution chamber instead of the prison’s longtime Christian chaplain. The warden denied his request and denied Ray’s 2nd request to not have the chaplain present in the execution chamber at all, according to the lawsuit.

Ray made a 3rd request to have no autopsy performed on his body because it conflicted with his religious beliefs, and Stewart said she “had no control” over that accommodation, the complaint says.

The same day Ray met with the warden, Ray also met with the prison chaplain. The Christian chaplain told Ray his requests "could not be honored due to ADOC policy,” the lawsuit says.

Ray claims in the suit he has not been allowed to see a copy of the policy that details chaplain presence or guidelines.

The lawsuit claims Ray’s First Amendment rights have been violated, along with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Tuesday, Ray’s lawyers also filed in federal court an emergency motion for a stay of execution, claiming Ray’s constitutional violations should halt the scheduled execution. “Alabama has made a policy decision… the chaplain is there solely for a religious purpose,” the motion says. “In other words, Mr. Ray’s freedom of religion lasts until he enters the execution chamber.”

The ADOC allows inmates who are about to be executed to use the prison’s visitation area each day of the execution week to see friends, family, attorneys, and spiritual advisers, the lawsuit says. Per policy, the inmate must leave the visitation area at 4:30 p.m. on execution day and is only permitted to meet with his or her spiritual adviser before being taken to the execution chamber for the scheduled lethal injection at 6 p.m.

“Alabama law does not require the presence of the prison chaplain at an execution,” the lawsuit claims. “Once in the execution chamber, a death-sentenced inmate who wishes to have physical contact with a religious leader while making a final prayer may do so only with the prison chaplain.”

Ray’s imam will be allowed to witness the execution from a room adjacent to the chamber through one-way glass. “There is no compelling governmental interest in preventing a condemned inmate from having his or her spiritual adviser- who has been approved to have a contact visit… moments before the execution begins—from taking the place of the prison chaplain in the execution chamber,” the suit states. “When that spiritual adviser is otherwise available, in the moments before death, imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of Mr. Ray’s religious beliefs.”

The Christian chaplain’s “mandatory presence” in the execution chamber serves an unconstitutional interest in “safeguarding the soul or spiritual health of the condemned inmate in the Christian (non-Catholic) belief system… [it] has the principle of primary effect of advancing Christian (non-Catholic) religion and inhibiting all other religions,” the lawsuit claims. The suit also says the chaplain policy creates an “excessive entanglement of government with religion.”

The lawsuit asks Ray to be allowed to have imam take the place of the prison chaplain during his execution and also to order the ADOC not require the presence of a chaplain in the chamber.

John Palombi and Spencer Hahn, assistant Federal Defenders, are representing Ray in the federal cases. Palombi said, “Mr. Ray’s suit goes to the heart of one of the most cherished of all rights, the right to freedom of religion. Neither Mr. Ray’s right to practice his religion nor his right to be free from having a different religion forced on him ends at the door to the execution chamber. We hope that the Commissioner will not force someone of a different religion on him and deny him the right to have his spiritual adviser with him at the moment of his death should that occur.”

Neither the Alabama Attorney General’s Office nor the ADOC responded to requests for comment by the time of publication.

Ray currently has a separate case pending in state court, where another team of lawyers have appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Ray’s is the 1st execution date set for 2019, and if carried out will be the 1st execution since Walter Leroy Moody’s execution in April.

Ray was also convicted of capital murder for the slayings of brothers Earnest Mabins and Reinard Mabins, and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He was convicted of that killing 5 months before the Harville trial in 1999.

(source: al.com)

************************* Man facing 2 capital murder charges in killing of son gets no bond



Damion Little is being held on no bond on the 2 capital murder charges. He has a preliminary hearing date of Feb. 21, 2019.

A toddler was shot to death in Prichard on Saturday.

Investigators named 22-year-old Damion Little as the suspect in the shooting that killed the young boy and injured the 23-year-old mother.

Charges have been upgraded against Damion Little for the murder of his 3-year-old son in Prichard. Little now faces 2 counts of Capital Murder in the death of Damion Little, Jr.

The 2nd count states that Little was outside the house and fired into the house, killing Damion Little, Jr.

Alabama state law allows for capital murder charges to be filed if the victim is under the age of 14. Little could now face the death penalty or life in prison without parole.

Prichard police released this statement:

On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at around 10:00 pm, officers responded to the 400 block of Minnie B. Turnbo Dr, in reference to a shooting incident involving a juvenile.

The juvenile was transported to a local hospital where he later died.

The juvenile’s mother was also injured in this incident, and was also taken to the same hospital where she was immediately taken up for surgery.

(source: WPMI news)








LOUISIANA:

Reeves seeks help from U.S. Supreme Court to avoid death penalty



It’s been nearly 18 years since Jason Reeves brutally murdered a little girl from Moss Bluff.

He’s sentenced to death, but there is another appeal aimed at saving him from execution.

4-year-old Mary Jean Thigpen was raped and stabbed by Reeves. Her tiny body was found in a cemetery.

Time after time, attorneys for Reeves lodged appeals. This time, it was a last-minute petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on an issue Calcasieu First Assistant D.A. Cynthia Killingsworth says has already been ruled on before.

In this filing, they are challenging how the state picked a jury. They are saying that we exercised our challenges based on racial discrimination. That issue has been decided a number of times: it was decided by the trial court, it was decided at the appellate court, it was decided by the Louisiana supreme court

Killingsworth says Reeves is the only person from Calcasieu Parish currently on death row at Angola. After what Reeves did, Killingsworth says he should to die.

"He had raped her when she was alive, and he killed her brutally. And for that, he deserves the death penalty,” Killingsworth said.

She says Reeves had tried to kidnap another child.

"He's a pedophile. In fact, there was information he tried to kidnap at least 1 other child prior to getting Mary Jean Thigpen."

Killingsworth says Mary Jean’s parents supported the death penalty. Her father died in a car crash, but her mother Carin has always agreed Reeves should die.

“She was just a bright and delightful child; always happy, always loving. And we just miss her every day. He needs to be punished accordingly for what he’s done.”

Once there are no more appeals, the state will seek a death warrant from Judge Mike Canaday which will start the process for Reeves to be executed by lethal injection.

We have reached out to the anti-death penalty attorneys who are handling Reeves appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gary Clements, with the capital post-conviction project of Louisiana, sent us the following statement:

As always, our sympathy goes out to the Thigpen family. As attorneys for Jason Reeves, we believe that there was an unfair process in the picking of his jury. We have therefore raised that jury selection issue in a filing to the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, we believe that there are mitigating circumstances that should reduce Jason Reeves’ death sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. Those issues will be raised in the federal courts as well.

(source: KPLC news)



MISSOURI:

Missouri Supreme Court Hears Case on ‘Hung Jury’ Death Sentences



The Missouri Supreme Court may soon rule on the constitutionality of the state’s practice of having the trial judge determine whether a capital defendant should live or die if the sentencing jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Death-row prisoner Marvin Rice was sentenced to death by the trial judge in August 2017, even though 11 of the 12 jurors in his case voted for a life sentence. His appeal, which the state court heard on January 23, 2019, argues that the portion of Missouri’s death-penalty statute that gives the trial judge exclusive sentencing authority in the event of a hung sentencing jury violates his “constitutionally protected rights to due process, a trial by jury, and to a unanimous jury verdict.”

At the time of the offense, Rice – a former deputy sheriff and disabled Army veteran – was suffering from a major depressive disorder that had been worsened by the effects of a pituitary gland tumor. Court documents indicated that he had been diagnosed with 12 various medical and psychiatric conditions for which he had been taking 17 different medications. 11 jurors were persuaded by this and other mitigating evidence that Rice’s life should be spared, but a single hold-out juror for death hung the jury. Trial judge Kelly Wayne Parker then disregarded the jury’s vote and sentenced Rice to death.

Rice’s appeal also challenges the constitutionality of Missouri’s capital punishment statute on the grounds that virtually any homicide now qualifies as a capital offense. This, he argues, violates the constitutional requirement that the death penalty be limited to a narrow class of the worst-of-the-worst killings. He also seeks a new trial based upon police and prosecutorial misconduct in his case. Police, he says, unconstitutionally continued to interrogate him while he was hospitalized for gunshot wounds sustained during his arrest, even after he had said he did not want to answer their questions. He also argues that the prosecutor repeatedly violated his constitutional right to remain silent, improperly commenting on both his decision not to testify at trial and his refusal to answer police questions after having been given his Miranda warnings. Rice’s lawyer, Craig Johnston told the state justices: “This court has repeatedly held that where an objection is made and overruled as happened here, a direct reference to the defendant’s failure to testify will invariably result in a new trial.”

Only Missouri and Indiana allow a judge to impose a death sentence following a jury deadlock in the sentencing phase of a capital trial. Alabama also allows a judge to impose a death sentence following a non-unanimous jury sentencing vote, but only if at least 10 jurors vote for death. No jury in Missouri has imposed a death sentence since 2013, but judges sentenced Rice and Craig Wood to death after juries could not reach a unanimous sentencing decision. Wood was sentenced to death in 2018 after his jury voted 10-2 for a death sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed the constitutionality of Missouri’s hung jury sentencing practice. However, in 2016, the Court struck down Florida’s death sentencing statute saying its provision requiring the judge, rather than a jury, to find facts necessary to impose a death sentence violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

(source: Death Penalty Information Center)








OKLAHOMA:

Oklahoma's next execution is a long way off



Oklahoma's death row houses 18 inmates who have exhausted their legal appeals, meaning they're eligible for execution. When — or whether — any of those executions occurs, however, is an open question.

The state hasn't carried out an execution since January 2015 — 4 years ago — and officials have been unable to get ahold of the machinery needed for the state's new execution protocol. In short, this is a mess.

Oklahoma officials announced last year that the state would go away from using three drugs in its executions, and instead would become the first state to use nitrogen gas. The change was driven, largely, by the difficulty in acquiring the necessary drugs — more and more manufacturers, wary of reprisals by anti-death penalty groups, have stopped selling their products if they're to be used in executions.

The same problem has arisen with nitrogen, as The Oklahoman's Nolan Clay reported Sunday.

Potential makers of a gas delivery device, said Department of Corrections Director Joe Allbaugh, are “all concerned and afraid of the same thing — every one of them. Retribution, losing their business, protests.”

This move stemmed from Oklahoma's considerable troubles with its former execution practices.

Those came under extreme scrutiny in 2014 with the execution of Clayton Lockett, who writhed on the gurney and wasn't pronounced dead until 43 minutes after the procedure began. A federal appeals court panel later called the execution a “procedural disaster."

A post-Lockett investigation revealed numerous problems, including faulty insertion of the intravenous line and a lack of training by members of the execution team. The state's use of the sedative midazolam in the Lockett execution also drew complaints, and lawsuits by other death row inmates who said the drug could result in an unconstitutional level of pain. The U.S. Supreme Court nixed that argument.

The state had an execution ready to go in September 2015, but it was halted after a doctor discovered that one of the drugs to be used was not part of the state's protocol. That wrong drug had also been used in the January 2015 execution, but the mistake wasn't found until after the fact.

The aborted execution in September 2015 was investigated by a state multicounty grand jury that cited, among other things, egregious failures by correctional officials and a shoddy execution protocol. The grand jury recommended several changes.

Now the state wants to use gas but can't find companies willing to build the machine. Attorney General Mike Hunter suggested the state may have to build one itself — something that surely would result in legal challenges beyond those that will result from using this new method in the first place.

In November 2016, Oklahoma voters showed they want capital punishment when they gave strong approval to a pro-death penalty state question. In early 2019, the state's next execution looks a long, long way off.

(source: The Oklahoman Editorial Board)








NEVADA:

ACLU's Holly Welborn on death penalty, criminal justice and Marsy's Law



From banning private prisons to lowering sentences for burglary and parole violations, Nevada lawmakers can expect extensive discussions on how to amend the state’s criminal justice system in the 2019 session.

One person poised to be at the center of the debate is Holly Welborn, policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and the civil liberties organization’s primary voice at the table during the 120-day legislative session.

Welborn, who graduated from UNLV and worked on political campaigns prior to joining the ACLU, sat down with reporters from The Nevada Independent on Friday to discuss her organization’s priorities for the upcoming session.

Death Penalty

Welborn and the ACLU of Nevada played a key role in opposing the execution of Scott Dozier last summer, filing numerous lawsuits and legal motions opposing the state’s attempt to carry out the death sentence. Dozier, who was convicted of murdering two people in the early 2000s and had given up further appeals, died by suicide earlier this month.

Welborn said Dozier’s suicide was a “terrible tragedy” and indicated problems inherent with the state’s application of the death penalty.

“It should be clear what individuals would be facing if they are going to die at the hands of the state, but I think it more so shows what a broken system it is, that Mr. Dozier…the last month of his life was living in this obsession of wanting to end it and go through that process,” she said. “I think it’s time that we end the death penalty once and for all so that way people who are living in the Department of Corrections and living on death row serving a life sentence have something else to focus on and we can end this inhumane practice.”

Welborn said at least two lawmakers — Democratic Assemblyman Ozzie Fumo and Democratic Sen. James Ohrenschall — had submitted bill draft requests outlawing use of the death penalty, and said she was heartened that Gov. Steve Sisolak came out in opposition to the death penalty during last week’s IndyTalks event.

Welborn acknowledged that the procedural hurdles and difficulty in obtaining proper lethal injection drugs left the state with a “de facto moratorium” on the death penalty, but said that shouldn’t stop the state from acting to get rid of it in the upcoming legislative session.

“If they can’t find the pharmaceuticals, I’m sure they’re not going to be able to proceed with executions in the state,” she said. “Now, I don’t think that there is any kind of drive for pharmaceutical companies to change their position on that, but there’s always that possibility, so I think we have to proceed with the fact that either the death penalty is still alive here in the state of Nevada and there are interests that want to proceed with executions and people want to see that happen. So I think that repeal is the track that we need to be on.”

Criminal Justice Reform

Welborn said the ACLU was preparing to push for a slew of changes to the state’s criminal justice system, boosted by Sisolak’s public promises to end cash bail, banning private prisons and expunging convictions for marijuana-related offenses.

Welborn said that the ACLU was prepared to advocate for bills implementing the 25 recommendations made by the Boston-based Crime and Justice Institute and approved earlier this month by an interim panel of lawmakers and criminal justice leaders, estimated to save the state up to $640 million over a decade in prison costs.

But Welborn said despite agreements with law enforcement in the interim to update things like Nevada’s definition of burglary and drug possession, lawmakers and others became skittish over recidivism proposals.

“There were about 13 offenses that myself and the District Attorney’s Association agreed should probably be reclassified, but then once it gets to the session, there’s the complete breakdown because people are so apprehensive to just try it,” she said. “Other jurisdictions have made changes and they’ve had success and the prison rate has dropped without impacting public safety. So I think it’s time that we finally have the data to work with to move that through.”

Welborn said she was “encouraged” that Sisolak pledged to end cash bail during his IndyTalks appearance and was working with Fumo on a bill to reform bail practices, including changing pre-release risk assessment criteria.

Welborn said she anticipated a more conciliatory relationship between the ACLU and Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford and Sisolak than their Republican predecessors, but said the organization had no plans to change its approach regardless of the party or individuals in power.

“The nature of the relationship will always be adversarial,” she said. “That’s what we do. We are a government watchdog organization. We are going to constantly file lawsuits and advocate for prisoners, et cetera, whose rights are violated on a regular basis no matter who is in power. That’s just the way that it is, but we’re looking forward to that open and transparent relationship to really solve these issues.”

Marsy’s Law

The Nevada ACLU was one of the few organizations statewide to oppose Question 1 — or Marsy’s Law — on the 2018 ballot.

Approved with nearly 60 percent of the vote, the ballot measure implements a long list of crime victim protections into the state Constitution, but state agencies have indicated the measure will have unknown costs because it will prioritize restitution payments to victims and reduce the chances that governmental entities can collect fees to maintain their programming.

Welborn said changing restitution requirements could prevent people from completing speciality drug courts and other fee-based aspects of the state’s criminal justice system, or could keep people otherwise eligible for parole or probation behind bars for longer if there are delays in notifying victims or court proceedings.

“We can try to fight for court opinions on that to interpret what this very big, broad law means, but it’s going to be a long fight to overcome the consequence of Marsy’s Law,” she said.

Indigent defense

Last year, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the state of Nevada over its public defender system, alleging the system was so inefficient and threadbare it violated defendants’ constitutional rights to an attorney.

For the most part, Nevada’s lightly populated rural counties contract out to private attorneys to represent people who cannot afford their own legal representation, but studies — including a state-backed Sixth Amendment Center study in August — found major issues with rural indigent defense representation.

“That’s exactly what was happening, a very different result in one county versus another county because there’s not standards in place,” Welborn said. “There aren’t caseload standards in place. There isn’t the ability for an attorney in a lot of counties to be reimbursed for any costs that are associated, so that drives down the level of the quality of the representation that a client is getting.”

Welborn said the ACLU’s lawsuit against the state was still proceeding, but wanted to push for additional state funding toward rural indigent defense in the upcoming legislative session. She said Sisolak’s proposal to create a statewide office of indigent defense was a “step in the right direction,” but wanted to see the state commit to shouldering more of the burden in paying for rural public defense.

“We’re still moving forward because there are major deficiencies and we need to make sure that we’re holding the state accountable,” she said.

Transparency

The ACLU is joining a coalition of media organizations and nonprofits seeking an overhaul of the state’s public records system ahead of the next legislative session. Similar to a stalled proposal championed by the group in 2017, Welborn said the coalition wants to refine public records law, including making electronic records the default and managing high fees associated with some requests for public information.

“It really is kind of against the spirit and intent of the public records law to charge somebody that because no one will be able to pay that fee to access it,” she said.

Welborn said the bill is being introduced by Democratic Sen. David Parks and won’t include a provision from the 2017 version requiring state lawmakers to comply with public records law, but said the organization still believes that it’s “an important conversation to keep engaging in.”

Disclosure: Holly Welborn has donated $140 and Steve Sisolak has donated $2,200 to The Nevada Independent.

(source: thenevadaindependent.com)








USA:

More charges for US synagogue accused----Robert Bowers' new charges include obstructing exercise of religious beliefs and hate crimes.



US authorities have added 19 hate-crime and firearms charges to their case against a Pennsylvania man accused of massacring 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue last October in the deadliest anti-Semitic attack in US history.

Robert Bowers, 46, could face the death penalty if convicted on any of 22 capital-eligible offences contained in the full 63-count superseding indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh.

A 1-time truck driver who frequently posted anti-Semitic slurs online, Bowers is accused of storming the Tree of Life synagogue during Saturday services on October 27 and yelling "All Jews must die".

The new charges announced on Tuesday against Bowers, who has pleaded not guilty to 44 earlier charges, include obstructing free exercise of religious beliefs that led to death and injury, committing hate crimes resulting in death and discharging a firearm.

As well as the mostly elderly congregants who died in the shooting, authorities said 2 were wounded, along with 5 police officers, before Bowers surrendered and was taken into custody after he was wounded in a shootout with police.

Federal authorities said Bowers entered the synagogue in the city's Squirrel Hill neighbourhood, a heavily Jewish area, armed with multiple firearms.

Bowers, a Pittsburgh resident, had made many anti-Semitic posts online, including one early on the day of the attack that said, "I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in."

In another, he slammed US President Donald Trump for doing nothing to stop an "infestation" of the United States by Jews.

At a November 1 court appearance, Bowers pleaded not guilty to the first 44 counts filed against him after entering the courtroom wearing a red jumpsuit and a bandage on his left arm. He also requested a jury trial.

(source: Associated Press)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu

DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty

Reply via email to